Odd Loading Error

[Mike Panczenko]

I was just finished a job where I was 2nd on a commercial, and we would roll out to save film. Since we rolled out, the inside of the roll was loose, and the loader had about 30 feet from the inside unspool on him. He respooled it, but, apparently, a few inches of the film got creased, and when it was being developed or transferred, the crease hit the gate and the emulsion got scratched off, taking about 30 feet. I'm just curious, has anyone ever heard of such a thing? This sounds absolutely weird, and I have never heard of such a thing. I'm just wondering about how often this happens, because this seems like a totally bizarre case.

[John Sprung]

What kind of camera was it? Having 30 feet unspool because of a rollout sure sounds strange. On any modern displacement mag, you can get your hand on the edge of the roll and prevent that as you lift it out. It would be trickier on the old Mitchell or Bell & Howell two chamber mags with the big screw type lids. You'd have to carefully turn the roll to take up the slack, but not so hard as to make cinch marks.

 

Usually the only problem with rollouts is that the end of the raw stock is folded into the slot on the core, and that fold can cause a chip to get picked out by the sprocket teeth. That would happen a lot on the 2C. I used to take the mag throat apart after any rollout to be sure there wasn't a chip in it. On a really bad day, the chip would fall into the gear chamber of the camera when you took the mag off. That meant popping the side off while everybody waits.

 

Making a crease while re-spooling sounds to me like just not knowing how to do it, or not giving the problem enough time. The only time we had crease problems was on sit-coms where the AC's were under pressure to thread up as fast as possible. Nobody wanted to be the last one. Pulling the film outward rather than straight down would sometimes cause a crease, and in the worst case, the crease would tear in the lab.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Yikes, are there no end to these odd, undetectable errors?

 

Phil

[Brad Grimmett]

Hi,

 

Yikes, are there no end to these odd, undetectable errors?

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I was working with HD the other day and had odd loading errors on a 700A. We called the rental house and their only suggestion was to turn the camera on and off and use a new tape. It's not like these things only happen with film. Also, the problem described above sounds like human error to me, as oppossed to some inexplicable problem that can't be figured out, as with video.

[Mike Panczenko]

It absolutely was human error. I was just curious if anyone had ever heard of a crease causing the emulsion to scrape off because of it hitting the gate. The human error was the unspooling, I have just never heard of this happening due to unspooling.

[Rob van Gelder]

Hi,

 

Yikes, are there no end to these odd, undetectable errors?

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Phil, hopefully you don´t mean to say that video or HD for that matter as opposed to filmtechnology is foolproof?

 

The simplest mistakes are made there too: one time I was in a rental company and overheard this telephone discussion between a "cameraman" and production: The tape he delivered from this important live event was full...... of feet, swaying around, sky, etc.

He pushed the record button alright, but not for the takes, he consequently managed to stop the tape when the real action started :blink:

 

His argument: but I saw it all in the viewfinder.......

 

And this is human error, but the electronic errors are happening everyday as well!

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

The point here I think is that if the video tape isn't loading (which has never, but never happened to me) you know about it .

 

Phil

[Jeff Tanner]

First of all I don't understand the idea of rolling out on purpose. The last 20 feet or so of every roll is horribly dirty 99% of the time which renders the last take useless anyway. You actually save money by not rolling out because you don't process the last unusable portion anyway...it's been cut off and discarded.

 

Secondly, if you roll out you aren't able to check the gate and see if the previous take(s) is/are clean. Mostly because after you roll out the gate will be dirty with the bits of emulsion and other particles that are at the end of every roll from where the film was cut at the factory.

 

It's not a smart practice to roll out on every roll, on purpose, IMHO.

 

Jeff

[Mike Panczenko]

This was a low budget shoot where every last bit of film mattered. They were willing to take the chance, I guess. As for the scratches, the director got the film back and, literally, only seconds of the film are scratched, and everything else if perfectly clean. A good end.

[John Sprung]

after you roll out the gate will be dirty with the bits of emulsion and other particles that are at the end of every roll from where the film was cut at the factory.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've never seen that with raw stock. The tails of prints tend to pick up a lot of crud, but the only problem I've ever seen on the tails of raw stock is chips getting picked out when the fold hits the sprockets. Perhaps John Pytlak can comment on this.

 

I'd agree, though, that rolling out is bad practice in principal photography. I used to do it a lot on inserts and stock footage when I was using up short ends, and the extra cleanup time was only my own.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[GWilliamPatrickB]

I've never seen that with raw stock.  The tails of prints tend to pick up a lot of crud, but the only problem I've ever seen on the tails of raw stock is chips getting picked out when the fold hits the sprockets. Perhaps John Pytlak can comment on this. 

 

I'd agree, though, that rolling out is bad practice in principal photography.  I used to do it a lot on inserts and stock footage when I was using up short ends, and the extra cleanup time was only my own.

-- J.S.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not to mention it is not overly healthy for the camera mechanism to run bare. After talkiing to some camera techs about cold weather techniques even they said use a rental if thats what you are doing to "warm" or loosen the movement before shooting in cold climates. It is akin to dry firing a weapon without a shell to keep the firing pin from crystalizing. The movement is happier with film in it.

 

GWPB

[John Pytlak RIP]

I've never seen that with raw stock.  The tails of prints tend to pick up a lot of crud, but the only problem I've ever seen on the tails of raw stock is chips getting picked out when the fold hits the sprockets. Perhaps John Pytlak can comment on this. 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The very end of the film roll is handled during film manufacturing as the perforator/spooler operator has to cinch the film onto the takeup core (in total darkness). No more than a few frames of film is normally involved. But tailing out a roll though the camera does tend to dislodge any dirt or debris that may have built up in the film path through the camera, and so should be avoided.

 

Each roll of camera film is a bit longer than the stated footage, as Kodak has a "customer allowance" for the very beginning and end of each roll.

[Brad Grimmett]

Each roll of camera film is a bit longer than the stated footage, as Kodak has a "customer allowance" for the very beginning and end of each roll.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How much longer John? I'm curious.....

Thanks.

[Sam Wells]

" The last 20 feet or so of every roll is horribly dirty 99% of the time which renders the last take useless anyway. "

 

 

I'd switch labs.

 

-Sam

[John Pytlak RIP]

How much longer John?  I'm curious.....

Thanks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It depends on the film specification number and the film type. Measure it through a footage counter for the film you use --- it should be fairly consistent as it is done automatically during perforating/spooling. For camera films, just look at the KeyKode numbers at the very beginning and end of the roll.

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en...g/contact04.pdf

[Max Jacoby]

It depends on the film specification number and the film type.  Measure it through a footage counter for the film you use

 

Yes, but my professional conscience forbids me to produce roll-outs. :(

 

Can't you just tell instead? :D

[Jeff Tanner]

I'd switch labs.

 

-Sam

 

 

Cute, but it's not the labs... It's the film. See John's earlier post. Roll out your next roll of film and tell me that there are no particles visible on your transfer in the last 15 or so feet. Less visible in 35, but still there.

 

Jeff